Greg,

I would also make the doctor read to the parent that there are genetic factors which we know about now which predispose to vaccine reaction, like MTHFR (in about half the population), as well as many others, including some gene deletions. Also mitochondrial disorders, for which there are some tests which could easily be done. They should ask the patient if they want to test for these factors before vaxxing, but accept a no as well without pushing. Also, that those who have relatives with neurological, allergic, or autoimmune disease are more likely than others to react severely to vaccines. Wouldn't that be everyone? They should also inform the patient as to how dangerous the disease in question was before the vaccine and how dangerous it would probably be now when it occurred.

Most reactions are not anaphylactic and immediate. I don't like demanding that only doctors and not stores give vaccines: I think store personnel have drugs to inject in case of an anaphylactic reaction and could call an ambulance as easily as the doctor could. I don't like giving doctors even more power and income by making them the only providers for those who really want a vaccine(s).

I think you'd have to just ask the patient to read the list of possible reactions from the package insert, they go on for pages and pages, and no one could listen to them with sufficient attention and consideration, and it would take half an hour to read them out loud. To be fair, in the discussion of how dangerous the disease used to be and would be now, I think it would be fair to describe how many used to die of it (like from Hib disease, one in a thousand babies in the mid-'80s) and what the symptoms were, as well as how effective the vaccine has been in preventing such suffering and death. And, as far as is possible, tell them how often severe reactions occur, but also tell them that most reactions occur long after and may be because of several vaccines, or be impossible to associate with a specific vaccine, but still destroy your life. Also tell the patient about homeopathic nosodes and give information about how effective and safe they have been.

And no, not many people would want to accept the vaccines after all that, at least they'd be a lot more selective, which would be all to the good.

So if the patient signed after all that, and there was a serious reaction, then you don't think they should be able to sue? Maybe sue the vaccine maker, or the government, but not the doctor? I've thought about that: the premise of Vaccine Court was to fairly compensate the vaccine-injured regardless of whether informed consent was present. Of course it hasn't lived up to that, but it was supposed to.

Laura, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Certainly, there are good scientific reasons for distinguishing between "biologics" and "drugs" as they are defined in the links you provided. However, for regulatory purposes (and I guess this could be done at the state level overriding federal regulations, such as has been done in so many states that have legalized medical cannabis despite its being classified as a "Schedule 1" drug by the DEA) I believe it would make good sense to have both drugs and vaccines classified as "prescription pharmaceuticals." For multi-disease vaccines like the MMR and DTaP, each immunizing component should be required to also be made available as a separate vaccine.

Then before any vaccine is administered (which must be done in a doctor's office, hospital or other medical setting with a licensed doctor physically present) a doctor must first write a prescription for it based on a specific medical condition that is being addressed by the vaccine in this individual patient. It would not be legal, for that purpose, for a doctor to even take into consideration anything like "public health" or the totally fictitious meme of "herd immunity." Whenever they are writing a prescription for anything they are always treating an individual patient for a diagnosed medical condition, period, end of story. And with all prescriptions, including both drugs and vaccines, the prescribing doctor or their qualified assistant should be required by law (in the case of vaccines, before administration) to carefully, directly inform and discuss with the patient (or in the case of minors, their parent or other legal guardian) all possible adverse side-effects, what sub-populations they have and have not been tested on (such as pregnant women or newborn infants), and how to immediately address and report any adverse events that might possibly be linked to the drug or vaccine. That information must be read out loud, not just printed on a piece of paper. The patient or their medical guardian (usually a child's parent) must sign a copy of a document certifying informed consent, including the entire text that was read aloud, prior to administration, with both parties receiving and retaining a copy. If after a vaccine (or other pharmaceutical) injury the prescribing doctor cannot produce a signed copy of the informed consent form, then the patient or their representative (including family members in the case of death or mental incapacitation) can sue the doctor for malpractice without having to go through anything like a "vaccine court." The prescribing doctor either has a signed copy of the informed consent form or he/she does not.

As for the advertising issue, I couldn't agree more that it's a huge problem that involves a lot more than just prescription pharmaceuticals. However, since I've heard that every nation in the world except the United States and New Zealand have already made direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription meds illegal, it seems to me that that would be a reasonable place to start. As one of the most eloquent leaders of our movement so often asks, "Why Is This Legal?"

Just wow. Thank you, Laura, and others who have offered their agreements and support here. I'm sickened by the diseased thinking that has gotten a hold of the populace, and afraid for my as yet unvaccinated teenage children. I'm so grateful for all of you who have dedicated yourselves to this fight. I simply don't have the voice that you, Laura, have, but what I can do is write those letters, sign petitions, and let you know how grateful I am for your work! Many loving eyes are on you, many people grateful that you are doing this.

Thank you, Laura. This should be required reading for every legislator, doctor, and nurse.

Thank you to all who have commented...I really do appreciate the support and encouragement here on AoA :)

Mark Wax, I am very sorry to hear that you are seriously ill. If you care to share at all, perhaps one of us here on AoA might be able to help in some way. In any event, I will keep you in my prayers.

Greg Hill, I have been thinking about your 2 questions throughout the day. First, I looked up biologics to see how the FDA defines them (https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/about-center-biologics-evaluation-and-research-cber/what-are-biologics-questions-and-answers). Here is an excerpt:

"In contrast to most drugs that are chemically synthesized and their structure is known, most biologics are complex mixtures that are not easily identified or characterized. Biological products, including those manufactured by biotechnology, tend to be heat sensitive and susceptible to microbial contamination. Therefore, it is necessary to use aseptic principles from initial manufacturing steps, which is also in contrast to most conventional drugs."

Then, I checked out this site: https://www.bio.org/articles/how-do-drugs-and-biologics-differ
Please read in full (it is very short like the first link). Another telling excerpt:

"Drugs generally have well-defined chemical structures, and a finished drug can usually be analyzed to determine all its various components. By contrast it is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to characterize a complex biologic by testing methods available in the laboratory, and some of the components of a finished biologic may be unknown."

What did I learn? I learned that biologics, which include vaccines, should perhaps be subject to even more scrutiny than "drugs". I wanted to remind readers that many hospital surgical waivers now include a clause that grants permission for unspecified "biologics" and "biogenics" to be used during surgery. That could include not only blood, but also vaccines being injected while the patient is unconscious, without their knowledge or specific permission. Patient, beware! If you do not want vaccines injected into you while under anesthesia, write NO VACCINES in bold, black Sharpie on your waiver, and also let your doctor and all surgical staff know that you do NOT give permission for any vaccines.

So to answer your question, it seems like drugs and biologics are quite different, yet both are pharmaceuticals, and each needs to be properly and ethically tested, and if approved, vigilantly monitored post-licensure during manufacturing, transport, storage, and post-administration, all done with respect to the individual natures of drugs vs. biologics. And just as for drugs, those who make and administer biologics should be liable, and anyone who improperly and unethically approves and recommends them should be liable, too, as in criminally liable. Hoping I understood your question correctly, and please write back with your thoughts on the matter.

Regarding your second question, I started answering, and it got very lengthy, so I deleted what I had written. In sum, since he who has the most money can quickly begin to control the airwaves, all forms of media, and the narrative in our country, via paid ads, it seems we need to revisit advertising in general. Ad money, like lobbying money, is wreaking havoc and causing destruction in our country, and therefore, we need to figure out how to right the ship, and soon.

You cover it all Laura.The mind washing of the public and learned people, to accept the most toxic substances as a health benefit sums it all up for me.The pharma elite must laugh themselves to sleep every night at us all, I was one they laughed at and accept their lies, not now they aren`t laughing at me now..we will have the last laugh at their expense.

Thanks again !

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

Thank you, Laura. An excellent contribution to the discussion, as always. There are two more things that I thought might be added to your suggested Solutions. The first would be to scrap the distinction between prescription medications ("drugs ") and vaccines ("biologics"), classifying them all as "pharmaceuticals." Second, I would ban all direct to consumer advertisement of all pharmaceuticals, which would include vaccines. Your thoughts?

Now we are engaged in what can only be seen as a great civil war, testing whether our nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. The time has come for everyone who wants to be healthy and for the masses to speak out and campaign against the deliberate attacks on censorship of information and independent science, informed consent and the things potentially harmful to our health. An electronic burning of the books has begun. We must rally against policies that are being enacted by the corrupted lawmakers on behalf of the pharmaceutical corporations who have been profiting from the agenda to sicken the nation in the name of disease prevention and health. It is no longer ok to poison our bodies, our food, our water, our air, and our environment. It is not ok to have vaccines that are not properly tested, have thousands of reports of harm and then force people to take them regardless of genetic issues, risk or, religious and personal beliefs instead of a focus on improving the safety. The greed of one corporation harms all as well and must be stopped. Those who are pushing vaccines and pharmaceuticals for money are being harmed by those who push glyphosate and gmos over health, and they are being harmed by those who push Emfs and 5g over health, and they are being harmed by those who push biosolids over health, and they are being harmed by those who push plastic and chemicals over health and on and on. Greed of one harms all. Profits over peoples health must end. If we cannot look within as a nation and see that, then there is no hope for humanity to survive. We must change and do the right thing for the sake of humanity which truly now hangs on a precipice.

The world may little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it will never forget what we can start. It is not just for you, but for all the living, and future generations that we are here, to now dedicate here to the great task remaining before us - the unfinished work so these catastrophic mistakes will not continue. That this nation, under God, shall have a new rebirth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

There have been certain points in human history where people have stood up to strong destructive forces against what often appeared to be insurmountable odds. Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. Nothings going to change. The fact its just not.
Begun, the health wars has.

I have known Laura for about 20 years. My son is now 26. Totally disabled and irreparably harmed. I relied on Laura for much of what we initially learned and investigated for our legal efforts, community responses and her pure intelligence. Laura is an alumnus of Stanford. I from USNA. Let me tell you something. We are not crazy nor products of inferior critical learning skills.I have recently been seriously ill and may not achieve my goal of obtaining justice for our son in my lifetime. But, I encourage Laura and everyone else to fight on. It is your duty. You have an unstated oath to your child and the children of others. The quest for truth may be painful. But there is nothing more freeing.